Send Beginners mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Beginners digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Doubts about functional programming paradigm (Rustom Mody)
2. Re: Doubts about functional programming paradigm (Darren Grant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:18:57 +0530
From: Rustom Mody <[email protected]>
To: The Haskell-Beginners Mailing List - Discussion of primarily
beginner-level topics related to Haskell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] Doubts about functional programming
paradigm
Message-ID:
<caj+teocy9ouzzx4sfmoaohjctguysbx-qnhtcwnsvxdzgqh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mr. McIlroy,
>>>
>>> FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It
>>> sounds like an amazing experience.
>>>
>>>
>> No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened
>>
>> About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors of
>> SICP!)
>>
>> http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more profound
> than I would have expected.
>
Not sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for
function application.
Neither does Haskell.
Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application.
Scheme pronounces it 'apply'. Haskell pronounces it '$'
This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:
Close because if we have
foo x = 2*x
we can write
Prelude> foo $ (2+5)
14
or
Prelude> foo (2+5)
14
Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized' to
foo$x = 2*x
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20151222/a24b72d5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:04:13 -0800
From: Darren Grant <[email protected]>
To: Haskell Beginners <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] Doubts about functional programming
paradigm
Message-ID:
<ca+9vpfcghdqjpoistbd1y2tts_iawuzweuqkiqq3o_dwadm...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Much better said. :)
Put my foot in my mouth. I was vaguely accusative where I intended to
allude to comprehension.
There are certain basic connections that had not really ever gelled prior
to reading some of your posts. For example, that function application
itself is obviously a fixed point had me slapping my forehead.
Much taken for granted in my day to day work.
Cheers,
Darren
On Dec 22, 2015 4:49 AM, "Rustom Mody" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mr. McIlroy,
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It
>>>> sounds like an amazing experience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened
>>>
>>> About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors
>>> of SICP!)
>>>
>>> http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more
>> profound than I would have expected.
>>
>
> Not sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for
> function application.
> Neither does Haskell.
> Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application.
> Scheme pronounces it 'apply'. Haskell pronounces it '$'
>
> This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:
>
> Close because if we have
> foo x = 2*x
>
> we can write
>
> Prelude> foo $ (2+5)
> 14
>
> or
>
> Prelude> foo (2+5)
> 14
>
> Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized'
> to
>
> foo$x = 2*x
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20151222/d6ead719/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
------------------------------
End of Beginners Digest, Vol 90, Issue 41
*****************************************
